Labour calls Commons vote over Lord Freud comments on disabled workers – The Guardian

141019freud

Labour will force a Commons vote on Lord Freud’s future after David Cameron refused to dismiss him as welfare minister for his suggestion that some disabled workers are not worth the minimum wage, according to The Guardian.

The Conservative peer has been allowed to remain in his job after apologising for the comment, but Labour will table a motion of no confidence to be voted on later this month.

Separately, the Independent on Sunday reported that a second government minister had made contentious comments over the role of disabled people in the workplace. Andrew Selous, a justice minister, was said to have told a fringe meeting at the Tory party conference that “disabled people work harder because they’re grateful to have a job”.

Read the full story here.

Follow me on Twitter: @MidWalesMike

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
bringing you the best of the mainstream media!

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

11 thoughts on “Labour calls Commons vote over Lord Freud comments on disabled workers – The Guardian

  1. leonc1963

    This needs the support of Clegg and his Party to win through and whilst that sounds easy given Cleggs comments on the issue that is not the case because as we all know what all MP’s say and what they actually do are miles apart, however it will be interesting to see how this pans out.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      Yes it will, especially as we are in the run-up to an election and Clegg knows – or should – that his party has a terrible reputation for going back on its word.

  2. joanna may

    Didn’t labour employ him in the first place? I refuse to believe that they didn’t know about his highly depraved nature! What they seem to be doing is ( shutting the stable door, after the horse has bolted )?!!

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      I think I made this point myself, last week – that it was a mistake for Labour to have employed him and his defection to the Tories should have prompted Labour to reverse the ‘reforms’ he advised them to impose.

      1. Ian Duncan

        Have Labour apologised for this ‘mistake’? Fraud was hired by people who knew what type of person he was and what his opinions were, I doubt very much he got the gig by pretending to be some wishy-washy liberal only to show his true colours later.

        It might have been a mistake to hire him but Labour din’t hire him by mistake, if you see what I’m getting at. It wasn’t an accident, as in “whoops a daisy, we appear to have given a job to a bigoted, right-wing crank who has no idea what he’s talking about” They did it with their eyes wide open and with the full intention of making benefit claimants lives miserable to appease arseholes who would never have voted for them in a month of Sundays anyway.

        It really is about time Labour stood for something rather than just triangulating the sh*t out of everything and hoping their core support doesn’t abandon them (which it seems to be, there’s little or no enthusiasm for Miliband after 4 years of the nastiest government since even before Thatcher, who was procrastinating milquetoast compared to these sh*theads).

        Actually, I think an open apology from the Labour party to all who have suffered because of Fraud would be a fine idea…

  3. Florence

    The sad truth is that those of us who have disabling illnesses or such conditions already work harder, not because we’re “lucky” to have a job, but because a lot of people do harbour fantasies that the “disabled” are a bunch of lead-swingers, and we know it.

    When I worked, our office supported home-working (for all). I was highly regarded by my boss, but once he casually remarked on my “absence” record. I took him time sheets & sick notes that proved that my sick leave below average, and I worked longer hours. He apologised, and said he had “assumed” that being disabled meant that “not in office = ill more”. And he was one of the good guys! I do suspect that there is a deep well of institutional and personal discrimination they are now tapping into. I’m so scared for all those of working age who have to contend with, facing govt-lead discrimination on top of everything else those with chronic illnesses or disabilities cope with.

    This has to stop. Along with the bedroom tax, ESA/ WCA, benefits cap, and the Fraud & co mutterings about “worth-less”, we’ll all be workless and homeless (=dead?). Or is this the plan?

  4. Guy Ropes

    Not sure if this is worth the comment but Freud threatened some time ago to sanction Councils who accepted the re-classification of rooms so that they escaped the bedroom tax.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      I don’t think so; I think he’s on a mission against them (the unemployed, sick and disabled, not the bankers).

Comments are closed.